THE OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW (AXIOLOGICAL) ARGUMENT

There is an objective (transcendent) moral law.

Every law has a law giver.
Therefore, there is an objective (transcendent) moral law giver.
The best explanation for this objective (transcendent) moral law giver is God.

EVIDENCE FOR THE OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH (AXIOLOGICAL) ARGUMENT

There are many reasons we know that God-given objective moral laws exist.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, he recognized objective moral laws and God-given human rights when he wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Founding Fathers believed these rights are universal and absolute, and belong to all of the people, in all places, at all times regardless of their nationality or religion. Otherwise, if we get our rights from our government, then those people that control our government can take our rights away. Instead, our “Creator” or God is the best explanation as the source of our human rights. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), chapter 7.

Without the objective moral law, there would be no human rights.

Our reactions help us discover the objective moral law.

When we are treated unfairly, our reaction will reveal the objective moral law written on our hearts and minds. For example, we are morally outraged when someone breaks into our home and steals a bunch of our property. Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, chapter 7.

When the famous Christian author and philosopher C.S. Lewis was an atheist, he believed that all the evil and injustice confirmed his atheism. Then he thought about how he knew the world was evil and unjust when he wrote that as an atheist, “my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1952), 45. Lewis could only detect injustice because there is an unchanging standard of justice written on his heart. Likewise, we cannot know what is evil unless we know what is good. In addition, we cannot know what is good unless there is an unchanging standard of good outside of ourselves. Without that objective standard, any objection to evil and injustice is nothing but our personal opinions. Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, chapter 7.

Without the objective moral law, we could not know justice or injustice.

OBJECTIONS TO THE OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH LAW (AXIOLOGICAL) ARGUMENT

Objection: If an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, God would not allow moral evil (caused by humans like wars and racial/religious prosecution) or natural evil (destruction of life and property from natural disasters like earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, and forest fires), and other pain and suffering (like anguish experienced by disease and famine). But evil and suffering exists. Therefore, what we think of as God does not exist because he is either not all-knowing because of evil and suffering exists, he is not all-powerful because he cannot prevent evil and suffering, and or he is not all-good because he has decided not to use his knowledge and power to prevent evil and suffering. Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion, (New York, NY: Routledge, 1996), 88.

Answer: First, before we provide an intellectual answer to the problem of evil and suffering, we should empathize with, comfort, and help anyone that is experiencing evil and suffering. Second, if we have been created by God who offers us eternal life and a loving relationship with us after we die, then we should consider pain and suffering in light of eternity. Third, God gives us free will to accept or reject him. This freedom also allows us to love or hate, help or harm, and give or take from others. Fourth, God does not tell us why he allows evil and suffering. Some forms of perceived evil may simply be an effort on the part of God to develop our character with eternity in mind. Given our limited knowledge and perspective, we may need to patiently endure evil and suffering until God reveals his reasons and purposes for allowing us to experience evil and suffering. J. Warner Wallace, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Devinely Created Universe, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2015) chapter 8; Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?: Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2017), chapters 2, 6, 10, 11, and epilogue; Sharon Dirchx, Broken Planet: If There’s a God, Then Why Are There Natural Disasters and Diseases? (London, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2023)

Objection: Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins contends that anyone who believes in God is “deluded, … ignorant, stupid, or insane” because advances in our understanding in evolution make belief in God obsolete as an explanation for apparent creation and design of the universe and life. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2006) p. 5, 31.

Answer: See the above discussion of the scientific evidence for God including, the beginning of the universe, fine tuning, intelligent design, and the problems with the theory of macroevolution for a refutation of Dawkin’s beliefs.

Objection: In addition, Dawkins also argues that the Biblical God of the Old Testament is evil. Then he goes on to state that since God does not exist, then evil, good, and objective moral values do not exist. Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 232. Similarly, the late atheist Christopher Hitchens criticized religion and the God of the Bible as evil. This God is obsessed with our sex lives, intruded on our thoughts and actions, and wants to torture us for eternity in hell for not obeying his immoral commands. Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, (New York, NY: Twelve, 2007).

Answer: First, Christians agree that if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and all behaviors, including but not limited to, murder, rape, and stealing, are merely a matter of preference and opinion. Second, only if God exists is there an objective, authoritative, unchanging standard (God’s nature) that establishes what is morally right. Even Dawkins admits, “it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.” Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 232. Therefore, Dawkins and Hitchens must steal from God’s nature to make their case that God is evil. Frank Turek, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), introduction.

Objection: Atheist philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris contends that objective moral values exist, but they can be explained without referring to God. He claims that if we use our reason, we will see that “human flourishing” is the standard by which we determine something is good or bad. Anything that increases human flourishing is good and anything that decreases human flourishing is bad. There is no need to ground objective moral values in God because reason and science can tell us what increases and decreases human flourishing. Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, (New York, NY: Free Press, 2010).

Answer: Harris has no objective standard to determine whether “human flourishing” is good or evil. One group of humans may flourish by using reason and science to oppress another group of humans. Harris must steal from God to set up an objective standard that whatever increases “human flourishing” is good. Turek, Stealing from God, introduction

Objection: Atheists understand right and wrong and can act morally. They don’t need God to tell them what is right and wrong.

Answer: Atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts. But they have no real basis for objective right and wrong. While they may believe in objective right and wrong, they have no way to justify such a belief unless they admit that a Moral Law giver exists. Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, chapter 7; Turek, Stealing from God, chapters 4-5.

THE OBJECTIONS FAIL TO REFUTE THAT IF OBJECTIVE MORAL LAWS EXIST. THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE A MORAL LAW GIVER.